Thread
A new paper by Heldring, Robinson & Vollmer (HRV), intervening in the debate about the productivity effects of Parlimentary enclosure (1750s-1830s)
www.nber.org/papers/w29772
www.nber.org/papers/w29772
In the 1970-90s, economic historians debated the effects of Parliamentary enclosure on English agricultural productivity. Findings were modest. Most notably, R. Allen found that Parliamentary enclosure raised agricultural output only slightly compared with open field agriculture
He argued, effects of enclosure were mostly to increase inequality without doing much to increase England’s capacity to feed. Although there are/were notable dissenters, Allen’s view is close to current consensus within EH.
But HRV find that wheat yield rose 44% on parliamentary-enclosed parishes. That is more consistent with traditional views.
Interestingly, the authors CONFIRM Allen’s results for his south Midlands sample. So arguably Allen overgeneralised from the Midlands to the rest of England
Interestingly, the authors CONFIRM Allen’s results for his south Midlands sample. So arguably Allen overgeneralised from the Midlands to the rest of England
Allen had an implicitly Ostromian view of the open fields system, and thus the HRV paper is implicitly anti-Ostromian, i.e., the English open field system created significant (productive) inefficiencies.
The HRV paper is very low-key about what it’s doing, but surely it is the most important intervention in British agrarian history since Allen’s 1992 Enclosure & the Yeoman.
BUT the HRV paper, because it's an economics paper, is trying equally to speak to debates about property rights, land reform, and allied issues in development economics. So it's not just about British agrarian history.
Methodological note:
HRV do something which I initially found confusing. Their initial OLS compares parishes enclosed by Acts of Parliament in 1750-1830, BOTH with parishes which did not enclose in this period AND with parishes which had ALREADY been enclosed prior to 1750.
HRV do something which I initially found confusing. Their initial OLS compares parishes enclosed by Acts of Parliament in 1750-1830, BOTH with parishes which did not enclose in this period AND with parishes which had ALREADY been enclosed prior to 1750.
It’s important to note that by 1750, perhaps 65-75% of England had been either already enclosed (by unanimous consent of inhabitants), OR had never had an open field system to begin with. (Some parts of England, like Kent, never had an open field system.)
INTUITIVELY, one would normally compare only enclosed and non-enclosed parishes; or compare the same parishes just before & after enclosure. But there are selection & sampling problems with the first procedure; and in the 2nd, there are not enough data to do a DiD
So, *prior* to the IV stage, HRV are comparing parliamentary-enclosed parishes with everything else (previously-enclosed and non-enclosed). There is a reason for this — it allows for causal inference later on — but it’s initially confusing.
The HRV paper also addresses the effect of Parliamentary enclosure on inequality in landholdings -- finds that concentration of landholdings increased after a parish was enclosed.
This confirms previous findings, so it's not novel like the the effect on wheat yield
This confirms previous findings, so it's not novel like the the effect on wheat yield
Another confusion (for me) is that the HRV paper calls small landholders (owners or tenants) "cottagers". This would be an unconventional use of the term in the context of British agrarian history.
Parliamentary enclosures are associated with land consolidations, i.e., after enclosure, small owners or tenants often SOLD their freehold or leases, because smaller farmers derived a larger % of their total income from common access rights to grazing, forest, pasture, wastes,
But enclosure extinguished access to common resources, so some (not all!) small holdings were less viable than before enclosure.
Neeson (1996) produced these tables to show the decline of holdings in Northamptonshire & Buckhinghamshire, by size of holding
Neeson (1996) produced these tables to show the decline of holdings in Northamptonshire & Buckhinghamshire, by size of holding
Land consolidations were ALREADY a trend in BOTH enclosed and non-enclosed parishes, but Neeson argued Parliamentary enclosures accelerated the trend. This is confirmed now for England as a whole by the HRV paper
The HRV paper lumps together 'cottagers' and 'small holders', but they are not treated the same conventionally in English agrarian history. This is VERY important if you are interested in the 'primitive accumulation' aspect of enclosures.
Cottagers were renters/owners of a cottage within a village, which granted them access to the village commons. But they were not necessarily owners or tenants of farm land. The cottage often had a small garden plot but this did not make them open-field farmers
'Cottagers' subsisted on a combination of working the garden plot attached to their cottage; and access to village commons (fire wood from the forest or pasturing their cows on common pasture etc. etc);.... AND working for wages on the open field farms!
So cottagers -- in conventional usage of the term in English agrarian history -- were part of the already-proletarianised labour force in the open field system.
They were NOT small holders within the open-field farming system that was enclosed, at least in conventional usage.
They were NOT small holders within the open-field farming system that was enclosed, at least in conventional usage.
English agrarian history has treated as *separate* topics "the decline of the small farmer" and "the plight of the cottagers" -- because they were distinct people. Enclosure also impacted them very separately.
Many of the small farmers who sold their land or leases to larger farmers after Parliamentary enclosure were (for want of a better term) "middle-cass" by the mid/late 18th century, and they might have simply moved to another parish to enter leases there.
By contrast, 'cottagers' were already semi-proletarianised (semi- because they still had some non-wage incomes) within the open field system.
The relevance of the above lies here:
In criticising Adam Smith's idea of an original peaceable accumulation of landed wealth, Marx argued rather that "primitive accumulation...is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production"
In criticising Adam Smith's idea of an original peaceable accumulation of landed wealth, Marx argued rather that "primitive accumulation...is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production"
Parliamentary enclosures of 1750-1830 did NOT do this, because the process described by Marx -- if it even happened *at all* -- had to have happened earlier, as M himself was at pains to describe.
1750 is simply too late for primitive accumulation!!!
1750 is simply too late for primitive accumulation!!!
Parliamentary enclosures of 1750-1830 (further) impoverished the 'cottagers' by eliminating their rights to common, & increased their wage dependence. But they were not proletarianised by enclosures because they had already been 90% proletarianised prior to enclosure!
The above (the idea that cottagers were the primary victims of parliamentary enclosure) is conventional wisdom, but there are important dissenters even on that 
